Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Philip Morris International-funded ‘Foundation for a Smoke-Free World’: analysing its claims of independence
  1. Yvette van der Eijk1,
  2. Lisa A Bero2,
  3. Ruth E Malone3
  1. 1 Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
  2. 2 Charles Perkins Centre and and Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  3. 3 Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Professor Ruth E Malone, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco CA 94123, USA; ruth.malone{at}


The Foundation for a Smoke-Free World was launched in September 2017 with an announced 12-year funding commitment of $1 billion from Philip Morris International (PMI). The Foundation claims that its governing documents (certificate of incorporation, bylaws and a pledge agreement) ensure that it has an independent research agenda and stringent protections from conflicts of interest. We analysed the text of these governing documents. Their provisions have multiple loopholes, particularly regarding conflicts of interest. Further, these documents cannot substitute for other important documentation such as information about PMI’s internal business case for investing $1 billion in the Foundation, an unwaivable conflict of interest policy, annual disclosure statements, copies of pre-Foundation establishment correspondence between key individuals, all signed contracts or salary information, none of which, as of July 2018, the Foundation has made publicly available. Even if these were released, however, it is problematic that the Foundation’s fundamental purpose was decided on and its leader selected following a tobacco company-paid, privately negotiated arrangement with the Foundation’s president. It cannot be regarded as independent.

  • tobacco industry
  • electronic nicotine delivery devices
  • harm reduction
  • end game

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors REM originated the idea for the paper. REM and YvdE conceptualised the paper. All authors analysed the data,wrote the paper, reviewed drafts and approved the final draft for submission.

  • Funding REM’s Mary Harms/Nursing Alumni Endowed Chair funding was used to support YvdK’s work.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement All data used in this analysis—the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World bylaws and certificate of incorporation—are available on the Foundation’s website.